These points become essential ammunition when dealing with Eastern Orthodox individuals fixated on the canon argument. Despite their fervor, it’s apparent that many Eastern Orthodox apologists are yet to grasp the full scope and implications of this discussion.

The Septuagint

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT. It was translated by 70 Jewish rabbis. Or so the story goes.

The Septuagint Bible arose in the 3rd century B.C., when the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, was translated into Greek. The name Septuagint derives from the Latin word septuaginta, which means 70. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is called Septuagint because 70 or 72 Jewish scholars reportedly took part in the translation process.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-story-of-the-septuagint-bible-119834

The Septuagint stands as the Greek translation of the Old Testament, attributed to 70 Jewish rabbis according to tradition. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church adheres to the Greek Old Testament, considering it the authoritative version. This assertion is commonly championed by the so-called Apostolic churches. Steve Christie, however, raises valid concerns about this argument, highlighting that the composition of the Septuagint’s books underwent developmental changes over time:

One of the common defenses for why Catholic Bibles are “bigger” than Protestant Bibles – particularly the Old Testament – is Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted frequently from the Septuagint.  However, Eastern Orthodox Bibles are also based on the Septuagint, yet their Old Testament is “bigger” than Catholic ones.  The Septuagint is believed in Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) to be the Greek translation of the complete Old Testament Jesus and the New Testament writers used, which includes writings not found in Protestant Old Testaments. 

Christie, Steve. WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon . Christian Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

It was the books of the Hebrew Bible, specifically, from the Septuagint which Jesus and the apostles used and considered Inspired Old Testament Scripture. Lee Martin McDonald (“The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority”) further reveals the Septuagint “initially included only the Law of Moses,” and then cites N. Fernandez Marcos (“The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible”): “by the end of the second or third century C.E., the term LXX was transferred to all of the literature that comprised the Greek Bible.”42 This demonstrates the version of the Septuagint which included the so-called Deuterocanon was a much later edition well into the future church age. Mr. Horn also admitted “sometimes they [Jesus and the apostles] do quote from Hebrew manuscripts or Hebrew traditions”43 (emphasis added), meaning they did not strictly use the Septuagint, nor all of it.  Mr. Horn also erred when he said “these books [Deuterocanon] were in the Bible before…the time of Christ”44 (emphasis added).  Rather, it was the books of THE LAW – not the Deuterocanon – which was initially translated into the Septuagint.

Christie, Steve. WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon . Christian Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

Contrary to popular belief, the Septuagint was not limited to only those writings found in Catholic Old Testaments (i.e.: the Hebrew Bible and the Deuterocanon).  There was more than one “version” of the Septuagint in the church age, which contained writings such as: 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (sometimes referred to as 3 Esdras), Odes (including the Prayer of Manasseh), the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.47 McDonald cites E. J. Epp (“The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri”), “Epp further notes (18-20) the discovery at Oxyrhynchus of one Old Latin and twenty-three Greek manuscripts of the LXX that included portions of Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Apocalypse of Baruch [i.e.: 2 Baruch], and 1 Enoch.”48 Later, McDonald lists in Appendix D of his book (“The Biblical Canon”) where 2 Baruch and 1 Enoch (and several other Apocryphal literature) are even cited and/or alluded to several times in the New Testament.49

Christie, Steve. WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon . Christian Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

Moreover, Christie underscores that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s canon is derived from the Septuagint. However, this canon includes works not found in the majority of canons:

None of these Apocryphal writings are found in either Catholic or Protestant Old Testaments, despite them being in some early versions of the Septuagint.  According to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, their Old Testament also includes additional writings, such as 4 Esdras and the book of Jubilees, as well as 1 Enoch which “The Ethiopic version of the Old and New Testament was made from the Septuagint”50 (emphasis added).  It also includes the other non-Catholic writings from the Septuagint listed above (3 and 4 Maccabees, 2 Baruch, etc.), as well as those in the Hebrew Bible and the Deuterocanon. Catholic author, Gary Michuta, admits “The Septuagint never actually stopped.  It was a liturgical text, and so more and more books were added to the Septuagint.  So, the Septuagint today is much bigger than before.”

Christie, Steve. WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon . Christian Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

The Septuagint was not the only Greek translation used in the early church. Another common misconception is the Septuagint was the only authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament in Judaism and the early church.

Christie, Steve. WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon . Christian Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

It isn’t possible to simply infer the canon of Diaspora Jews from our copies of the LXX, and this is why:

“No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Baker 1992), 34-35.

“As we have seen, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since, in the second century AD, the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin,” R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986), 382.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html

“The controversy between Rome and the Reformers did not long escape the notice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox were slow in taking sides. They knew both the broad and the narrow canon of the Fathers, and were concerned that the books of the broad canon, which they used in their liturgy, should continue to be esteemed. On the other hand, the belief that only the books of the Hebrew Bible are actually inspired has gradually gained ground among the Orthodox, at the expense of the Roman view, and it now looks as if a decision to this effect could be taken in the forseeable future by a pan-Orthodox synod….A draft statement which makes a firm distinction between the canonical books (those of the Hebrew Bible) and the books that are read (the Apocrypha) was prepared for the coming Great Council of the Orthodox Church, and though this topic has now been deferred until some future occasion, a similar statement has been agreed in the promising negotiations between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics. The first of these two statements is published in Towards the Great Council (London, SPCK, 1972), p. 3f., and the second in Episkepsis, no. 131 (23 September 1975), p. 10f. The Orthodox list of the books that are read, by comparison with the Apocrypha of the English Bible, adds 3 Maccabees, but finds no place for 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) or the prayer of Manasses. The 4 Maccabees of the LXX is not included either.” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon Of The New Testament Church [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986], p. 2, n. 9 on p. 14)

“in 1642 and 1672 respectively Orthodox synods at Jassy (Iasi) and Jerusalem confirmed as ‘genuine parts of scripture’ the contents of the ‘Septuagintal plus’ (the canonicity of which had been taken for granted), specifically: 1 Esdras (= Vulgate 3 Esdras), Tobit, Judith, 1, 2 and 3 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ben Sira (Ecclesiastiscus), Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. The Septuagint remains the ‘authorized version’ of the Old Testament in Greek Orthodoxy, its deviations from the traditional Hebrew text being ascribed to divine inspiration. Most Orthodox scholars today, however, follow Athanasius and others in placing the books of the ‘Septuagintal plus’ on a lower level of authority than the ‘proto-canonical’ writings….an ecumenical milestone was reached in 1973 with the appearance of the Common Bible, an edition of the RSV with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books printed between the Testaments in a form which received the blessing not only of Catholic and Protestant church leaders but also of the Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, the leader of the Greek Orthodox community in Britain….The commendation of the Greek Orthodox Archbishop is the more telling because the OT part of the work is not based on the Septuagint, which is the authoritative text for the Orthodox Church” (F.F. Bruce, The Canon Of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pp. 82, 113, n. 31 on p. 113)

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/eastern-orthodox-acceptance-of-hebrew.html

Despite claims that the Septuagint is the definitive Old Testament due to its citation by Jesus and other New Testament writers, it is crucial to note that these biblical figures did not exclusively cite from the Septuagint.

Did Nicaea determine the Canon?

There is no historical basis for the idea that Nicaea established the canon and created the Bible. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity and other early evidence show that Christians disputed the boundaries of the biblical canon before and after Nicaea. For example, even lists from pro-Nicaean fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. AD 350) and Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. AD 367) don’t agree on the inclusion of Revelation. None of the early records from the council, nor eyewitness attendees (Eusebius or Athanasius, for example), mentions any conciliar decision that established the canon.

There is no historical basis for the idea that the Council of Nicaea established the canon and created the Bible.

https://equip.sbts.edu/article/the-council-of-nicaea-did-not-create-the-canon-of-scripture/

Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a settled Canon?

As I’ve mentioned in some recent posts (here and here), Eastern Orthodox disagree among themselves about the canon of scripture. Though people often claim that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree in accepting the canonicity of “the Apocrypha”, the two groups disagree about which Apocryphal books are to be accepted. The Eastern Orthodox scholar John Breck writes:

“‘Deutero-canonical’ is the qualification given by Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions to writings considered by the Church to be inspired but having a lesser degree of authority in matters of faith and morals. These include 1-2 [some would add 3-4] Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and certain additions to Esther and Daniel.” (Spirit Of Truth: The Holy Spirit In Johannine Tradition [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991], n. 1 on p. 93)

In addition to the disagreements over 3-4 Maccabees, some Eastern Orthodox include other material not mentioned by Breck. Thus, the fact that Roman Catholics and many Eastern Orthodox accept “the Apocrypha”, “deuterocanonical books”, etc. doesn’t prove that they have the same canon. Eastern Orthodox don’t even agree among themselves about the canon of scripture. As Jan Alberto Soggin explains, Eastern Orthodox hold a wide variety of views on this subject:

“Even today, moreover, the status of the books in the Alexandrian canon is a matter of controversy among the various Christian churches: while the Roman Catholic church after the Council of Trent accepted the canonicity of the greater part of the Alexandrian canon (but not all; it excluded III Ezra and III-IV Maccabees), some Eastern Orthodox churches maintain an equivocal attitude, while others have included different books in their canon; the Protestants and Anglican churches have generally rejected their canonicity, for the most part merely according them the status of devotional books” (Introduction To The Old Testament [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989], p. 19)

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiple-canons-of-eastern-orthodox.html

Most Eastern Orthodox Apologists aren’t allowed to discuss such

Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox adherents frequently lack the necessary authority and in-depth knowledge, rendering them ill-equipped for engaging in meaningful discussions with individuals outside their faith.

“It is not for all to grasp the depths of theology; but only for those who have been tested and have had their minds purified.” (Divine Names, Chapter 2) “
* “We should not divulge the mysteries to those who are not initiated, nor pour forth the divine wisdom to those who are not worthy.” (Mystical Theology, Chapter 1)
* “The sacred truths are not to be entrusted to the profane, nor are the divine mysteries to be given over to the uninitiated.” (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Chapter 1)

“But let us leave behind the impure beams of the sense-perception, and ascend with the Hierarch to the pure and unmingled Light, becoming contemplators.” (Divine Names, Chapter 13)

“It is for those who have progressed a little way in Divine knowledge to guard the common holy mysteries from the unholy, by not manifestly exposing them to the irreverence of those who are utterly unregenerate.” (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Chapter 3)

“It is not, however, within our own competence to choose, but belongs to the initiators who, in every act of divine leading, can impart an activity proportionate to those who are being led.” (Mystical Theology, Chapter 1)

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Apostolic Tradition?

Eastern Orthodox believers appear to embrace the succession of various churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Church of Toledo, the Oriental Orthodox, and even the Russian Orthodox Churches. However, a perplexing issue emerges when we scrutinize their diverse canons. Despite recognizing the validity of their succession, a glaring question persists: Did apostolic succession prove adequate to deliver a unified canon, or are these churches muddled in their doctrinal heritage?

“Modern Orthodox bibles contain all the so-called Apocrypha, including 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasses and 3 Maccabees. Greek bibles, issued with the approval of the Holy Synod, also include 4 Maccabees, but in an appendix, while those issued by the Russian Orthodox Church include 4 Esdras,” K. Parry, et al. eds. [Foreword by Rt Revd Kallistos Ware] The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Blackwell 2004), 83.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/evangelical-innovations.html

Methodism

Translation and Transmission

The declarations made by both Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Roman Catholic (RC) traditions, asserting their authoritative stance on the canon, face increased complexity upon closer scrutiny. While they confidently present the canon’s contents, the challenge arises when one considers the indispensable need for an infallible manuscript. Just as a book lacks utility without sentences, structures, and chapters, an infallible canon requires an infallible manuscript. However, neither EO nor RC can claim possession of an infallible manuscript or translation for the Bible or the sacred documents they uphold. Instead, their reliance on scholarly recreations introduces an element of uncertainty, casting doubt on the asserted infallibility of their canon.

This situation draws parallels with Protestantism, highlighting the shared challenge of lacking an infallible manuscript. In essence, all these traditions grapple with the task of relying on scholarly interpretations and reconstructions, negating any clear advantage in the pursuit of an infallible canon.

In a work composed by some of the leading Eastern Orthodox scholars of our day, the Eastern Orthodox New Testament scholar Veselin Kesich wrote:

“The Gospel of Mark ends with the women fleeing from the tomb. They are in awe. There is no specific list of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances in this gospel. The so-called ‘longer ending’ of Mark (16:9-20) is most probably a later composition, and our important ancient codices, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain it.” (in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy Of Peter [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], p. 37)

The Eastern Orthodox New Testament scholar and priest John Breck:

“St. Mark’s Gospel seems originally to have ended with 16:8.” (Longing For God [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006], p. 48)

The Eastern Orthodox scholar and priest Paul Nadim Tarazi writes the following about the structure of the gospel of Mark. Notice where he ends:

“The literary structure of Mark can best be discerned precisely by paying attention to the way Paul and the issues facing his Gentile churches show through in the story of Jesus. The story is built around a framework that begins with a preamble (1:1-15) followed by three cycles of calling/invitation (1:16-3:12; 3:13-6:6a; 6:6b-8:21) and three cycles of teaching (8:27-9:29; 9:30-10:31; 10:32-45). Then there is a pivotal pericope [38] where Timothy’s leadership as Paul’s successor is introduced (10:46-52), and that is followed by two long sections, one offering the gospel for the last time to the Jerusalemite Christian leadership (chs.11-13) and one recounting their refusal of it (chs.14-15). Finally there is a short text indicating the door is still open for Peter and his following (16:1-8) to accept Paul’s gospel.” (source here)

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/less-conservative-side-of-eastern.html